and Justice Scalia, in reference to denying homosexuals protection against discrimination, said:
"If it is rational to criminialize the conduct, surely it is rational to deny special favor and protection to those with a self-avowed tendency or desire to endage in the conduct." Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Wow, i was not aware we were living in 1984. The Thought Police are sitting on the Supreme Court.
Comments (11)
URL: http://
I doubt many people who don't fully know if they are indeed have much risk of discrimination.
Posted by Sam | February 10, 2007 8:15 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:15
URL: http://
please don't kill any more of my motivation to write this paper. it's running dangerously low.
Posted by p-man | February 10, 2007 8:15 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:15
URL: http://
don't want to write my brief...
Posted by Darcy | February 10, 2007 8:15 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:15
oh, doudar, how you crack me up ;)
Posted by p-man | February 10, 2007 8:15 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:15
URL: http://
Ironically enough, I just wrote "by proxy" in my brief! Who'd a thunk it?
Posted by Darcy | February 10, 2007 8:15 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:15
yeah, i tuned that proxy discussion out for the most part. from what i gather, a proxy is a facade, a farce, an excuse to do something that leads to a more direct goal you had in mind.
Posted by p-man | February 10, 2007 8:15 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:15
URL: http://
it really sounded like he was saying being homosexually "oriented" was enough of a reason to not protect you from discrimination. if that's the case, homosexual thoughts are the key. what if you have people that have not come out of the closet or are still trying to figure themselves out and have yet to act on any of their feelings? i know this may be the exceptions, but we're really good at talking about exceptions in law school.
Posted by p-man | February 10, 2007 8:15 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:15
URL: http://
I thought I understood what proxy was until Sam just used it. Now I'm dumb again. :(
Posted by Darcy | February 10, 2007 8:15 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:15
URL: http://
If you keep insulting Justice Scalia, you're just asking to be smote. Consider yourselves warned. In all honesty, I think you're misconstruing the use of a classification as a proxy with punishment of beliefs: show me a homosexual who doesn’t engage in homosexual conduct or a heterosexual who does engage in homosexual conduct.
Posted by Sam | February 10, 2007 8:15 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:15
URL: http://
Cut to scene of a young Anton Scalia reading 1984 in a classroom. Scalia: [thinking] this shit is great. crap, what if they find out i'm thinking this? The floor suddenly opens up and swallows him, he tumbles for miles just like Gandalf in LOTR, except he's not nearly as bad ass.
Posted by p-man | February 10, 2007 8:15 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:15
URL: http://nottotallyinept.blogspot.com
wow, '...tendency or desire to engage in the conduct.' i bet Scalia read 1984, and afterwards just said, 'what's all the fuss about? those are some of the best ideas for running a government i've ever heard. we're long overdue, long overdue...'
Posted by erik | February 10, 2007 8:15 PM
Posted on February 10, 2007 20:15